Has Hilary recently said, “I love my husband” in public? That would be a tough one to swallow.
You think that’s tough to swallow, what about…no. I mustn’t. It would be wrong…
Thank you.
I can’t even tell if you’re serious here.
But I should point out that the history of the human race is replete with examples of people who loved well but not wisely. I have no idea how the Clintons’ marriage is. But I certainly make room for the possibility that she’s a successful, accomplished woman who loves her husband, even though he cheated on her. That’s really her call to make, not mine or anyone else’s, and if she does she wouldn’t be the first and won’t be the last.
I’ll happily criticize her for voting against CAFTA, or for her vote against the Vitter Amendment. For her husband and their relationship? Nope.
He repeatedly and publicly humiliated her by his serial cheating. It struck me at the time that not leaving him was pretty strong evidence of her own shameless political ambition, which was verified soon after by her reverse-carpetbagging move to NY to become a senator.
Odds are very high that I’ll vote for her for president given any Republican candidates I can see on the horizon, but I won’t enjoy it. For me it’s a character issue more than one of experience, skils or a strong resume.
The Vitter Amendment that would have withdrawn congressional staffers’ healthcare subsidies? 
How is HER character damaged by HIS infidelity?
I wasn’t present in Fayetteville on October 11, 1975, so I don’t know what their wedding vows were, but assuming they were more or less traditional, then she promised to stay with him for better or for worse. If she conforms to that promise when things are indeed worse, it seems to me to be a validation of her character rather than any evidence in derogation of it.
You show me a promise she made and then broke, and I’ll agree you’ve highlighted a character issue. Don’t impute to her her husband’s lack of character.
And an even more heartfelt plea: stop making me defend her, please.
No – H.R. 5441, forbidding confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of same isn’t prohibited under federal or state law.
Marriages are weird.
Her character wasn’t damaged by his infidelity, her character was displayed by not dumping the prick.
Even though it continues. Personally, I think they have an open marriage, but America’s not ready for it. Doesn’t mean they should deceive the public though. No one has a right to elected office. If the public isn’t ready for political couples in open marriages then couples with open marriages shouldn’t get into politics. It’s not too great a sacrifice to expect Bill to behave himself for the sake of his wife’s career.
I remember when you said that about Obama too - Benghazi, IRS, AP, Umbrellagate (okay, maybe you didn’t grab that one), none of which have proved to be anything more than hot air. The GOP are still digging furiously in the shitpile hoping to find a pony.
I don’t think the email thing reflects well on Clinton but I’m not yet convinced it demonstrates an active effort to avoid scrutiny (as opposed to sending emails through the party server - and then deleting anywhere between five million to 22 million emails - as certain members and “advisors” of the previous administration did). Rice claims she barely used email (odd but plausible) and Albright claims likewise (much more plausible); Powell used personal email AND deleted many of them (because it’s been ten years). My default position is that this is the inertia of poor government practice rather than deliberate obfuscation (Hanlon’s Razor applying) but reserve the right to change my mind should further evidence arise.
Actually, I didn’t make a case about quantity other than that it established a pattern of behavior: incompetence and lack of accountability. Geez, even on the Clinton thing the President resorted to the “I heard about it the same way you did, in the paper” defense. This is his direct subordinate and he doesn’t know how she was communicating? Did she never send the President an email that he actually read? I guess he has Valerie Jarrett handle that too.
With Clinton, there is also a pattern of behavior: obsessive secrecy, total lack of transparency. You know a good way to beat scandals? Give up all the evidence. When you hide things, people assume you’re guilty. In politics, you do not actually have the right to be presumed innocent. You work for us, you need to prove you have integrity.
The problem, as I see it, is that each “side” almost automatically has a bias where it’s almost impossible to prove that a person they don’t like HAS integrity. Even if she had done everything in a transparent manner, there would be several people thinking that Hillary either acted with integrity once, or just had another server that she used for the implicating emails.
I’ve said before (on another board) that some members of the Right distrust Obama so much, that, if he declared he actually was a secret communist Muslim from Kenya, Mitch McConnell would introduce a bill declaring Obama born in Hawaii.
nearly every politician who has been around long enough has SOMETHING in their past. When it’s one time, it can be that they really are innocent of wrongdoing or they made a mistake in judgment. Or they might even have a serious character flaw but it’s limited to one area(such as womanizing with some politicians, or drinking, or being really bad judges of character). When you’re always in trouble, that’s because there’s a good reason for you to be in trouble.
Obama is the former: he has one major character flaw: lack of accountability. It’s always someone else’s fault. Every time he’s been in trouble, it’s always revolved around that one problem of his. Clinton, on the other hand, is always in a variety of crap, and a lot of it revolves around personal or political gain. She’s never been caught breaking the law, but she’s always skating right up to that line.
I see an Olympic event in her future. It will be like curling, a right wing person will push her until she juuuuust misses the line.
Heh. But yeah, I mean I would never claim she should be disqualified for office for her scandals. Just know what you’re buying. This isn’t change if change is what you’re looking for. Government will not get more transparent under a Clinton administration. This is one issue where the Republican might actually have a pretty big advantage.
When has Obama been in trouble, and for what ?
Not referring to legal trouble, but media and public relations trouble. While none of his scandals have killed his Presidency, they all contributed to a falling approval rating and especially falling ratings in the area of competence: